To shut down Dallas Clark would require better play at the SLB position, not the WLB position.

To my understanding, we aren't running a scheme with a specific SAM or WILL OLB. Meaning, if Clark motions to the formerly weak side, our OLB's do not switch either. Our LB's line up in the same position at all times, thus disregarding the SAM and WILL terms. I believe our OLB's are expected to be capable of playing either side. Also, if Clark runs a crossing or drag route, which is common for receiving TE's, the OLB that was over him initially should not follow him and vacate his zone of the coverage. There has to be communication between the LB group, as with any unit. and since we do not distinguish FS and SS, safety help is sometimes able to be given to the TE, which is why at times we see the S out of position down the field.

__________________
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we had when we created them.

To my understanding, we aren't running a scheme with a specific SAM or WILL OLB. Meaning, if Clark motions to the formerly weak side, our OLB's do not switch either. Our LB's line up in the same position at all times, thus disregarding the SAM and WILL terms. I believe our OLB's are expected to be capable of playing either side. Also, if Clark runs a crossing or drag route, which is common for receiving TE's, the OLB that was over him initially should not follow him and vacate his zone of the coverage. There has to be communication between the LB group, as with any unit. and since we do not distinguish FS and SS, safety help is sometimes able to be given to the TE, which is why at times we see the S out of position down the field.

If that was our system last year then lets not do that again because we routinely got abused by any team with a decent TE (Clark, Winslow II, Gates). Whatever the problem was, it haunted us pretty much all season (I'll grant that Tony G wasn't outstanding).

I like the 4/3 defense, but don't really care for our implementation of it in some cases. Why not put your best corner on the offenses best WR? Instead they play a side. Well duh. If I am the O-coord, all I have to do is make sure my #1 lines up on the opposite side. Seems pretty dumb to say the least.

I like the 4/3 defense, but don't really care for our implementation of it in some cases. Why not put your best corner on the offenses best WR? Instead they play a side. Well duh. If I am the O-coord, all I have to do is make sure my #1 lines up on the opposite side. Seems pretty dumb to say the least.

I'd like to hear a coach explain it in more detail than "it helps us disguise our coverage" but a lot of teams have chosen to go that route.

I'd like to hear a coach explain it in more detail than "it helps us disguise our coverage" but a lot of teams have chosen to go that route.

Who else uses that, do you know? I don't understand what is tricky or disguising about sitting on one side of the field, and staying there. Obviousely, there is some legit reason for it whether right or wrong. It just seems that you would want your best on their best.

Who else uses that, do you know? I don't understand what is tricky or disguising about sitting on one side of the field, and staying there. Obviousely, there is some legit reason for it whether right or wrong. It just seems that you would want your best on their best.

What's tricky is that they line up the same whether it's zone or man. They blitz from the same positions. So you don't know which receiver is your hot read and there's a chance with some offenses that if the receiver and QB read the coverage differently, that they'll actually be on different pages and end up making a mistake (QB throwing to an empty space, etc.).

Instead of looking like it's man and shifting to zone or looking like it's zone and shifting to man or disguising blitzes or whatever, it looks the same every time. It looks vanilla. But then from that vanilla base, they could go into almost any type of defense. If it works, it's great. But you've got to have guys that can move.

What's tricky is that they line up the same whether it's zone or man. They blitz from the same positions. So you don't know which receiver is your hot read and there's a chance with some offenses that if the receiver and QB read the coverage differently, that they'll actually be on different pages and end up making a mistake (QB throwing to an empty space, etc.).

Instead of looking like it's man and shifting to zone or looking like it's zone and shifting to man or disguising blitzes or whatever, it looks the same every time. It looks vanilla. But then from that vanilla base, they could go into almost any type of defense. If it works, it's great. But you've got to have guys that can move.

But couldn't you disguise the zone/man part of it while still lining up over the oppostions best WR rather than play one side of the field? I mean you could still go into a zone from that right? I'm not arguing just asking. I'm simply trying to figure out what perceived advantage it is for the Dback to line up on one side only. Simplicity? I really don't know, but it's something that keeps bugging me about our system.

But couldn't you disguise the zone/man part of it while still lining up over the oppostions best WR rather than play one side of the field? I mean you could still go into a zone from that right? I'm not arguing just asking. I'm simply trying to figure out what perceived advantage it is for the Dback to line up on one side only. Simplicity? I really don't know, but it's something that keeps bugging me about our system.

Let's say you stick with the vanilla look but swap sides so that your best defender is on the same side as their best receiver. Then let's say that they put that receiver into motion and move him to the other side of the field. Do you make your corners swap sides? That's going to be hard to manage and they're going to be able to catch you mid-shift. Or do you go ahead and play that one guy man and make the zones shift to accommodate?

Whatever you're going to do, it's going to get complicated.

With our system, I'm sure that it's extremely complicated with changing assignments based on shifts and things like that.

The only way to really get your best cover guy on their best receiver is to play man.

does this weekend's mini-camp include the vets, as well as the rookies?

Yes. Alot of teams are running full team mini camps instead of rookie camps because logistically it makes no sense to bring in 7-10 guys by themsleves. Some teams are holding tryouts for FA's during their rookie camps instead of merging them though.

I still don't think that our Safeties and OLB's are supposed to be "interchangeable" in the sense that they are supposed to play similar roles...IMHO, that wouldn't make much sense...

I don't think our SS turns into a FS when the strength switches, and I don't think our WLB takes on the role of a SLB if the strength changes...

It's just like Madden...The safeties, OLB's, DE's and CB's don't switch unless you make them...

Despite that, the FS is going to be the safety who is over the top most of the time and the SS will me man up on the TE or RB, or Reciever....

A lot of people assume that if the SS is man up on the TE, if that TE then goes to the opposite side the other Safety (FS) must then take on the SS responsibilities...

That is not always true...A LB may then become responsible for the TE if it's man...
All the while your defense isn't shifting much and there won't be a dead giveaway of whether its zone or man...

If it's zone then it's zone...doesn't matter where they shift other than the fact that defenders need to have recognition...If someone goes in motion the SS is not all of a sudden going to have over the top coverage and the FS is not all of a sudden going to have the motioning player man up....

Play Madden....Look at the pre-snap defensive assignments and watch how the red lines change but responsibilities basically stay the same without the LB's or safeties moving....Blitzes don't change based on motions unless specifically ordered by the coach..

And I'm not saying that our FS is never going to play in the box or be in man coverage...

But it's pretty obvious that our OLB's are not meant to be interchangeable....Look at the guys we play on the weakside and look at the guys we play on the strongside...

At one OLB spot we tend to play thicker stronger less athletic brick wall type guys...Danny Clark, Zach Diles, Charlie Anderson, Shante Orr (former DE's)...at the other spot we play guys who move better in space are better in coverage and tend to be quicker ; Greenwood, Shawn Barber, Adibi...

This is not coincidence...It is because our OLB's have different roles...

Does anybody remember last year when CC was forced to move down to the SS spot and Von Hutchins took on the FS position ?

Kubes said something to the effect of CC being a natural SS and that he was really being moved back into his real position....

Why would he make that comment if our safeties basically have the same roles and are supposed to be "interchangeable"....It shouldn't have mattered which spot he played if that were the case...Especially not enough for him to have made a comment like that...

If the Safeties are interchangeable why not just put Von Hutchins at the other safety position and let CC stay put ? Maybe because Von Hutchins was a cornerback who excelled at over the top coverage ? AKA what FS's do...

I just don't buy the theory about our Safeties that seems to be "common knowledge" around here...
Just because they don't switch sides when motion occurs doesn't mean that they are interchanging responsibilities...

That'd make very little sense because offenses would easily be able to pick up on that and exploit it...You want to minimize mismatches on defense and a defense designed that way would only help create them...